possom813
Member
Good 'Ol' #2 said:A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
#5 said:No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
I was reading a post the other day that mentions that a court case could come down to the placement of commas in the 2nd Amendment.
For some reason, I recollect an argument about the wording "well regulated militia", and what defines that.
The 5th Amendment seems to compare the Militia to the land and naval forces. Could that be an accurate definition that may cause problems for gunowners in the future?
I just read through the Constitution, and also noticed several spelling errors. Such as: defence, Pensylvania, and a few punctuation errors. I don't know if the errors would hold up in a Court of Law, but it was an interesting read.
-John